Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Assuming you are allowed to leave. Assuming another state lets you in. Or that you will not be required to convert to something you do not like to get in. Or that you will be allowed to practice any religion at all when you get there.
All of the powers you are granting to states amount to a dictatorship. Those who want to authorize the power to oppress others assume that they will be the ones in charge. Then they are so surprised to find themselves on the receiving end.
BTW you do realize which church has more members than any other single church in the US, right? Yup, the one with the most terrible historical record of brutal suppression of dissent when in collusion with government. The one whose members have the highest birth rate. Protestant bloc cooperation? You have got to be kidding. Whatever church gets in power is going to remove tax exemptions from all other churches first off. Any that survive will just be declared illegal. It is going to be every church for itself.
The Federal government is going to step in? Nope, they are not allowed to interfere with religion, remember? Oh, wait. That is only Congress that is limited. Presidential executive orders are not covered. How about Obama deciding what religion everyone must follow? And of course who is allowed to say what, what can be reported or opined in the media, who can assemble in public and who can ask for redress from the government. And once that is done, anything goes.
It is very common for people to want to tell other people how to live. But they never realize that once they give out that power, it is often other people telling them how to live. Take my advice. Stick with what we have now. It could be worse. Much worse. And in many times and places throughout history it has been.
Please respond that you understand that this time so we won't have to do this again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
Good luck with THAT
LOL, I started this post saying the same thing Nate said before I even knew he said it. I've had similar experiences with him...Hopefully, he'll respond with an amazing, indepth response this time!
Anyways, regarding this issue (sort of), I'm ok with Christians calling this Nation a "Christian Nation" as long as they mean its still the most popular religion in the country and they aren't trying to turn us into a theocracy.
And 9 of the 13 original states had official religions. They were NOT opposed to religion being practiced in the state. They just didn't want the FEDERAL government dictating it.
Yeah, and in Massachusetts they had that old time religion where women were burnt and drowned on suspicion of being witches. Yeah, let's go back to that old time religion.
Yeah, and in Massachusetts they had that old time religion where women were burnt and drowned on suspicion of being witches. Yeah, let's go back to that old time religion.
Assuming you are allowed to leave. Assuming another state lets you in. Or that you will not be required to convert to something you do not like to get in. Or that you will be allowed to practice any religion at all when you get there.
In this country, free travel between states is allowed.
Quote:
All of the powers you are granting to states amount to a dictatorship. Those who want to authorize the power to oppress others assume that they will be the ones in charge. Then they are so surprised to find themselves on the receiving end.
I've never suggested that a state has the right to oppress its people. But the way the founding fathers wrote the constitution, the states did have the right to govern themselves for the most part.
Quote:
BTW you do realize which church has more members than any other single church in the US, right? Yup, the one with the most terrible historical record of brutal suppression of dissent when in collusion with government. The one whose members have the highest birth rate. Protestant bloc cooperation? You have got to be kidding. Whatever church gets in power is going to remove tax exemptions from all other churches first off. Any that survive will just be declared illegal. It is going to be every church for itself.
So move to another state. I'm not suggesting it's right--but it is how the constitution was written.
Quote:
The Federal government is going to step in? Nope, they are not allowed to interfere with religion, remember? Oh, wait. That is only Congress that is limited. Presidential executive orders are not covered. How about Obama deciding what religion everyone must follow? And of course who is allowed to say what, what can be reported or opined in the media, who can assemble in public and who can ask for redress from the government. And once that is done, anything goes.
The founding fathers certainly did not want a king issuing executive orders. Republican or Democrat. And no--he cannot limit free speech. Our 1st Ammendment rights guarantee that.
Sorry, but you're someone with actual knowledge of how this country works talking to someone who will never listen. Conservative fundamentalists who push their states rights beliefs in 2014 are throwbacks to the conservative fundamentalists of the 1950's in the South. They don't need no stinkin' 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment has been incorrectly applied to step on states' rights.
In this country, free travel between states is allowed.
Unless the state you wish to travel to requires you to be a registered member of the established religion to enter. There is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing interstate travel. It has been established by the Supreme Court but then so has overall freedom of religion over and above what the Constitution says. If you stick to strict interpretation of the Constitution there is no inherent right to move to another state.
Quote:
I've never suggested that a state has the right to oppress its people. But the way the founding fathers wrote the constitution, the states did have the right to govern themselves for the most part.
The founding fathers never envisioned a Federal government like we have today. Power breeds power. Have you ever known a government to not expand its power?
Quote:
So move to another state. I'm not suggesting it's right--but it is how the constitution was written.
Assuming you can. Even if the next state is willing to let you in, the Feds have the Commerce Clause that could be used to isolate religions the current powers that be view as unfavorable. If the Supreme Court says that a corporation is a person, then traveling between states with money in your pocket could be commerce.
Quote:
The founding fathers certainly did not want a king issuing executive orders. Republican or Democrat. And no--he cannot limit free speech. Our 1st Amendment rights guarantee that.
No, the First Amendment prevents Congress from suppressing free speech etc. If the states are not bound by the First Amendment, then neither are executive orders. When you open Pandora's Box you do not get to pick and choose what you want to take out.
Unless the state you wish to travel to requires you to be a registered member of the established religion to enter. There is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing interstate travel. It has been established by the Supreme Court but then so has overall freedom of religion over and above what the Constitution says. If you stick to strict interpretation of the Constitution there is no inherent right to move to another state.
Does the US government not have the right to regulate interstate commerce?
Quote:
The founding fathers never envisioned a Federal government like we have today. Power breeds power. Have you ever known a government to not expand its power?
I agree--they didn't want a strong Federal Government, and didn't envision one like we have today.
Quote:
Assuming you can. Even if the next state is willing to let you in, the Feds have the Commerce Clause that could be used to isolate religions the current powers that be view as unfavorable. If the Supreme Court says that a corporation is a person, then traveling between states with money in your pocket could be commerce.
Exactly. I honestly don't have a solid answer for this. Except that in 1776 travel between states was free and expected. I don't see why they would have wanted that to change.
Quote:
No, the First Amendment prevents Congress from suppressing free speech etc. If the states are not bound by the First Amendment, then neither are executive orders. When you open Pandora's Box you do not get to pick and choose what you want to take out.
The 14th Amendment has been incorrectly applied to step on states' rights.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
How has this been "incorrectly applied?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
